As shown in the attached list of plaintiffs (Attorney White-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Agency for Defense Development and one other (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 5, 2013

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gahap21363 Decided February 23, 2012

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants, including selective joined claims for compensation for losses, shall be modified as follows.

The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiffs and the defendants bear the costs of litigation.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs the amount of money indicated in the “amount of claim and appeal” as stated in the “amount of claim” as well as the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment (the Plaintiffs are claiming for damages or damages arising from tort from the first instance to the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the order to pay the following amount shall be revoked. The defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs the amount stated in the "amount of claim and the amount of appeal" in the attached Form 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendants

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiffs are fishermen engaged in fisheries in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun. Defendant Agency for Defense Development (hereinafter “Defendant Agency”) was established on December 31, 1970 by Act No. 2258 on December 31, 1970, and is a corporation established on January 28, 1971, taking charge of technical research, research, development, and testing of weapons, equipment, and materials necessary for national defense as well as the investigation, research, and testing of science and technology related thereto.

B. Establishment of the marine shooting range of the instant case

(1) In accordance with Article 13 of the former Act on the Agency for Defense Development (amended by Act No. 10215, Oct. 31, 2010; hereinafter “former Agency for Defense Development”), the Defendant research institute has a flag test site, a sea test site, and an aviation test site. Since the establishment of a comprehensive test team to conduct technical tests, etc. on leading weapons and gun ammunition around October 197, the Defendant research institute operated the “○○ comprehensive test site” at the ○○○○○○○○, South-west-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, 197.

(2) The Minister of National Defense, an administrative agency belonging to the defendant Republic of Korea, established the first marine shooting range (private distance 13Km) for gun, ammunition test (private distance 23 Km) and the second marine shooting range (private distance 180 Km), the third marine shooting range (private distance 180 Km), the fourth marine shooting range (private distance 35 Km in shooting range), the fourth marine shooting range for gun and ammunition test (private distance 35 Km in shooting range), around 1981, around 1987, the fifth marine shooting range (private distance 14 Km), the fifth marine shooting range for leading arms test (private distance 14 Km), around 194, and the six-year marine shooting range (private distance 45mK) for gun and ammunition test (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "marine shooting range of this case").

C. Use of the marine shooting range of the Defendant Research Institute

(1) After the establishment of the maritime shooting range of this case, the Defendant Research Institute continued to conduct a maritime test shooting for performance tests of guns, ammunitions, and leading weapons in the maritime shooting range. Since 2004, the Defendant Research Institute conducted a test shooting for about 200 days annually (hereinafter “instant test shooting”).

(2) The Defendant research institute, as a safety measure for the test shooting of this case, controls the operation of vessels in the relevant sea area by means of using directly controlled vessels in addition to receiving support from the naval vessel and the coast guard boat after undergoing a series of procedures in accordance with the “Safety Management Guidelines for the Maritime Shooting 1)” prepared by the Minister of National Defense (hereinafter “instant operation control”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 37 and 38, Eul evidence 45-1 and 2, Eul evidence 45-2, testimony of the witness of the court of first instance and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on claims for compensation for losses

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In addition to the purpose of the establishment of the Defendant Research Institute and the management behavior of the Defendant Research Institute, the Defendant Research Institute shall be deemed to be a defense acquisition company with independent legal personality. The test shooting of this case, which is conducted in the maritime shooting range of this case, is an act of testing the performance of weapons developed by the Defendant Research Institute, and constitutes an act of performing life development projects, which is essential for life development projects. Examining these circumstances in light of related Acts and subordinate statutes, restricting the permitted fisheries in the maritime shooting range of this case, the restriction of the permitted fisheries upon the need for marine test shooting in the maritime shooting range of this case shall be deemed to be subject to the Defendant Research Institute’s property control under Article 34(1)2 or 34(1)5 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 826, Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter “former Fisheries Act”). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs shall be deemed to be subject to the Defendant Research Institute’s property control and supervision under Article 34(1)4(5) of the former Fisheries Act, and thus, the Plaintiffs shall be deemed to be subject to the Defendant 4(1).

B. Note 7) Judgment

(1) The premise for the determination

㈎ 공용침해와 공용제한

In order to achieve a certain public interest, the State or a local government’s act of infringing on a private person’s property right is classified into public expropriation, public use, and public use. The term “public use restriction” refers to the public use restriction imposed on a private person’s property right in order to achieve a specific public interest, and the restriction by region and district legislation is representative to promote a rational utilization of the national land or a sound urban development. Meanwhile, since the public use restriction infringes on a private person’s property right, there must be a legal basis under Article 23(3) of the Constitution. However, the compensation for damages caused by the public use restriction (hereinafter “Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works”) is governed by an individual Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Act on Public Works”). The former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 865, Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects”) and the same Act applies only to public use Act or the following type of land.

㈏ 구 수산업법 제34조 제1항 소정의 어업제한처분의 성격

Although the restriction on fisheries under Article 34(1) of the former Fisheries Act imposes restrictions on the exercise of fishing rights for which a license, permit, or report was obtained, it does not bring about the effect of expropriation or use of fishing rights, it constitutes a "public restriction" among three types of violations under public use. Therefore, the compensation relationship with respect to the restriction on fisheries under Article 34(1) of the former Fisheries Act is not applicable to the former Public Works Act, but to the former Public Works Act, which provides the relevant restriction on fisheries, and accordingly, the former Fisheries Act applies to the relevant restriction on fisheries separately from the former Public Works Act. Meanwhile, the proviso of Article 81(1)1 of the former Fisheries Act, unlike the licensed fisheries, has an exception provision on compensation for licensed or reported fisheries. As such, the reason for different handling of licensed or permitted fisheries differently is that it is possible to understand that the restriction on fisheries cannot be applied to major fishing businesses, other than the area where the restriction on fishing is made, and that the restriction on fisheries of permitted or reported fisheries is subject to major fishing business of reported fishery business.

㈐ 손실보상청구권의 발생과 제한

Article 81(1)1 of the former Fisheries Act provides that a person may file a claim for compensation for losses in cases where he/she received a disposition of licensed, permitted or reported fisheries due to a cause falling under Article 34(1)1 through 5 of the former Fisheries Act through the main text of the same Act. Meanwhile, the proviso of Article 34(1)1 through 34(1)3 of the former Fisheries Act provides that “where the permitted or reported fisheries is restricted due to a cause falling under Article 34(1)1 through 3 of the former Fisheries Act” shall be excluded from the subject of compensation. In addition to the legislative structure of the aforementioned Act, the proviso of Article 81(1)1 of the former Fisheries Act provides an exception provision on compensation for permitted or reported fisheries, unlike the licensed or reported fisheries, in addition to the purport that the proviso of Article 81(1)1 of the former Fisheries Act provides for exceptions to the licensed or reported fisheries. At the same time, “where permitted fisheries is restricted due to a cause falling under the provisions of Article 34(1)3 of the former Fisheries Act” shall be deemed not to have a claim for compensation.

(2) Whether the instant operational control constitutes Article 34(1)3 of the former Fisheries Act

㈎ 인정사실

1) On February 21, 1978, the 73rd airspace management committee of the Ministry of National Defense attended the traffic department and the persons in charge of the Ministry of National Defense, and the said committee decided to establish the 1, 2, and 3 marine shooting ranges among the marine shooting ranges of the instant case in accordance with the proposal of the Minister of National Defense. The 89th airspace management committee held on April 16, 1981 attended the 4 marine shooting ranges among the marine shooting ranges of the instant case. The said committee decided to establish the 4 marine shooting ranges among the marine shooting ranges of the instant case in accordance with the proposal of the Minister of National Defense. Since then, the 5 and 6 marine shooting ranges of the instant case were newly established through the airspace change conducted in 1987 and 194.

2) The Minister of National Defense, around January 1995, requested the relevant ministries to submit materials to review and supplement the guidelines for the operation of maritime shooting ranges, including the maritime shooting range of this case. Accordingly, the Minister of National Defense submitted materials to review and supplement the guidelines around February 1995 at the Army Headquarters, the Navy Headquarters, the Air Force Headquarters, the National Police Agency, and the Fisheries Agency (Maritime Affairs Department). On March 17, 1995, the Minister of National Defense sent a draft of the guidelines for the safety operation of the maritime shooting range to the relevant ministries. On March 28, 1995, the Minister of National Defense held the relevant assembly while attending the relevant departments, such as the Army Headquarters, the Navy Headquarters, the National Police Agency, and the Korea Fisheries Agency and the Korea Fisheries Agency (Maritime Affairs Department), and the Minister of National Defense included the guidelines for the safety operation of the maritime shooting range of this case as stated below in the guidelines for the safety operation of the maritime shooting range of this case.

1. Objectives;

Under the monthly shooting plan, the basic guidelines and procedures necessary for maritime shooting training for the land, sea, and air force conducted in the Korea Coastal Maritime Shooting range, the coordination of the shooting plan for the country and the test shooting, and the efficient cooperation with the related departments for safety affairs.

2. Scope of application;

This Guidelines shall apply to the Army, Navy, and Air Force Headquarters, the Air Force Headquarters, the Agency for Defense Development, and cooperative agencies supporting the Agency for Defense Development, which operate the maritime shooting range (a aeronautical station, waterway station), the National Police Agency, and the Fisheries Agency.

6. Detailed procedures for operation;

(d)the safety administration of the maritime shooting range shall be classified into:

(ii) maritime use control;

㈏ 각 부서별 인가된 월별 해상사격을 실시할 때 함선(군함, 상선, 기타 함) 안전에 관한 해상사용통제는 아래 부서에서 실시한다.

In the vicinity of the launch points of the Maritime Police Agency, the Maritime Police Agency, the Maritime Police Agency, the Maritime Police Agency, the Maritime Operations Headquarters, the Maritime Air Force Headquarters to conduct shootings under the Maritime Operations Headquarters, and the vicinity of the launch places of the vessel controlled by the Agency for Defense Development belonging to the Agency for the Maritime Development: The vicinity of the Maritime Police Agency, the Maritime Police Agency, the Maritime Police Agency, and the Agency for Defense Development.

7. Duties of each agency and 9) Measures to be taken;

(a) Visitss (the staff of the operations);

(1) supervise the necessary co-operation activities for governmental agencies (traffic division, the National Police Agency, the Fisheries Agency) and the military in operating the maritime shooting range;

(2) By 20 days prior to the issuance of a monthly shooting plan to be protected by the fleets sailing at the coast of Korea (shipships, merchant vessels, and other warships), and aircraft flying over the coast of Korea (military vessels, civilian aircraft) from 9 relevant departments (traffic departments, the National Police Agency, the Fisheries Agency, the waterway stations, the station, the station, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force Headquarters, and the official writers).

(c) Navy;

(3)In the operation of the third maritime shooting range in operation with the State, support for the participation of the persons involved in the meetings for maritime safety control at least one month prior to the request of the State, and for matters determined at the time of the meetings.

(f) National Police Agency;

(2) At the request of the State and local governments of the Korea Coast Guard, dispatch the Korea Coast Guard to assist in maritime safety control at the time of using six coastal shooting ranges in operation.

(g) The Fisheries Administration;

(1) Upon receipt of a monthly shooting plan, fishermen enlightenment and education for vessel control in the maritime shooting range danger zone and notify the departments concerned of the monthly shooting plan;

(h) The Agency for Defense Development;

(1) A monthly plan for the use of a shooting range shall be reported to Gohap (the staff of the operations) no later than 45 days before consultation with the Air Force Operations Headquarters (the Air Force and the UAF).

3) From 2004 to 2012, the test shooting in the maritime shooting range of this case, which had been enforced the safety operation guidelines of this case, (1) when the Defendant research institute requests the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff notified the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) or the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) that he was in charge of the affairs concerning the “fisheries” under the Government Organization Act at the time of Joint Chiefs of Staff, and (3) notified the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries or the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of the plan for maritime shooting training, and (4) the Cheongnam-do governor notified the Taean-gun

4) On the other hand, the head of △△△ Gun notified the Do governor of the marine shooting training plan as above, and notified the Do governor of the marine shooting training plan on the bulletin board or the fishing village fraternity on the unit of each Eup/Myeon, and notified the district in which test shooting is conducted by specifying the location by attaching the district map to the Do governor of the Do governor or the △△△ Military Federation, etc. In addition, the head of △△△ Gun notified the Do governor of the district in which test shooting is conducted by attaching the district map to the Do governor of the Do governor, and the head of the Si/Gun took measures to conduct radio broadcasting (However, the notice necessary for the above radio broadcasting was directly prepared by the

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Eul's evidence 2-1, 2, 3-3, Eul's evidence 4-1, 2, 5, 6-2, Eul's evidence 39-1, 2, 41, 42, Eul's evidence 43-1, 44, 45-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, 3-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-2, 1, 2, and 3-3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

㈏ 판단

6. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries notified the head of the Ministry of National Defense and the competent administrative agencies of the operation guidelines prepared by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, including the Korea Army Headquarters, the Korea Air Force Headquarters, the National Police Agency, and the Korea Fisheries Agency (the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries), to the effect that the Ministry of National Defense and the competent administrative agencies can be seen as being drafted under the agreement between the Minister of National Defense and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. 2. According to the safety management guidelines of this case, if the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries receives a monthly shooting plan from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, it appears that the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, including the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, provided that the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, “the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries,” the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, as stated in Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, deemed that the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries had been in charge of marine defense training and education for the control of fishing vessels within a danger zone of the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and that the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries had been in charge of the Ministry’s.

The plaintiffs asserted that "other cases where the Minister of National Defense deems it necessary on the strategy and tactical basis and agreed with the heads of administrative agencies concerned" under Article 19 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act should be interpreted as "where the military forces' strategy, tactical training, and practical operation (i.e., operation) are deemed necessary to prevent or defend the regular and irregular invasion by the enemy forces or to ensure the safety of the people in relation thereto, and where they agree with the heads of administrative agencies concerned". However, in light of the literal meaning of " Strategy" and the purport of Article 19 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, the strategies referred to in Article 19 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act should be interpreted as "where the Minister of National Defense approves the improvement of military strategy and weapons systems with the head of the administrative agency concerned". Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that Article 19 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act should not be applied to the strategies referred to in Article 19 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Decree."

(3) Sub-determination

The operation control of this case conducted for test shooting in the marine shooting range of this case is determined to correspond to the restrictions on fisheries in accordance with the provisions of Article 34 (1) 3 of the former Fisheries Act. Therefore, as claimed by the plaintiffs, the business conducted by the defendant research institute falls under the "national defense and military business" under Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Public Works Act and constitutes the "national defense and military business" under Article 4 (1) of the former Public Works Act, and even if the plaintiffs were subjected to the operation control of this case due to the above public work conducted by the defendant research institute among those engaged in various permitted fisheries after obtaining a fishery permit from the competent administrative agency, the operation control of this case against the fishermen who obtained the fishery permit constitutes "where the permitted fishery is restricted due to the reasons falling under the provisions of Article 34 (1) 3 of the former Fisheries Act" and therefore, it is determined that the claims by the plaintiffs for compensation under the provisions of Article 81 (1) 1 of the former Fisheries Act do not occur.

3. Judgment on the claim for damages caused by a tort

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In addition, the Plaintiffs are not entirely informed of any administrative disposition that serves as the basis for the instant operational control by the head of △△△, the competent administrative agency, and are directly carried out by the maritime control lines belonging to the Defendant research institute, not by the administrative agency with the control authority, but by the maritime control lines belonging to the Defendant research institute. As such, insofar as the instant operational control is arbitrarily carried out by the Defendant research institute without any lawful administrative disposition, the Plaintiffs should be deemed entitled to claim damages from the Defendant research institute. Meanwhile, the Defendant Republic of Korea is a public official provided by the State Compensation Act because (i) the Defendant research institute’s supervisory authority failed to faithfully perform its supervisory duties, thereby neglecting tort by the Defendant research institute, or (ii) the Agency for Defense Development and its head and its employees failed to perform its duties, or (iii) the Defendant’s employees constituted a public official provided by the State Compensation Act, and thus, is not exempt from liability as joint tortfeasors. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable

B. Determination

(1) A general disposition refers to an administrative disposition against many and unspecified persons regarding a specific fact. Such a general disposition refers to an unspecified number of persons subject to personnel regulation, which has characteristics that general or regulatory contents are specific, and thus constitutes an act of installing a crosswalk 12 by the commissioner of a district police agency.

(2) In the instant case, if the Defendant Research Institute requests the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the test shooting in the instant maritime shooting range was conducted through the process of notifying the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (or the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) and the Cheongan-gun-gun through Chungcheongnam-do, and the head of △△-Gun notified the maritime shooting training plan as above, he shall post the maritime shooting training plan on the bulletin board or notify it to the fishing village fraternity for each Eup/Myeon unit, and notify the district in which the test shooting is conducted by specifying the location by attaching the district map to the Do to the head of the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries or the head of the △△△△-Gun Federation, etc., and the head of the △△-Gun notified the location of the zone in which the test shooting is conducted by attaching the district map to the area to the Do. On the other hand, the fact that the head of the Si/Gun took measures to implement a radio training plan to notify the

According to the above facts, △△△ head is determined to have the character of "general disposition" that restricts fishing activities in the sea area where test shooting is conducted by many unspecified persons, not just a simple fact, but also a "general disposition" that restricts fishing activities in the sea area where test shooting is conducted. Ultimately, the head of △△ head is determined to have made a disposition of restriction on fishing pursuant to Article 34 (1) of the former Fisheries Act. As alleged by the plaintiffs, even if the plaintiffs were not individually notified of the restriction on fishing or the direct control of fishing vessels was partially conducted on the sea where test shooting is conducted by the Defendant research institute, it cannot be deemed to have been arbitrarily done without any administrative disposition on the sole ground of such circumstances. All of the plaintiffs' claims for this part are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case, which is selectively joined, is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance which partially accepted the claim for damages by some plaintiffs, is unfair in its conclusion differently. Therefore, the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, including selective consolidation of damages claims, shall be modified as described in the Disposition No. 1 of this case, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Dong-won (Presiding Judge)

1) Prior to May 1995, the “Operational Guidelines for the Maritime Shooting Range” or “Operation Guidelines for the Maritime Shooting Range,” which is applicable to the Maritime Shooting Range in the instant case, was established on May 1, 1995, and the “Safety Operation Guidelines for the Maritime Shooting Range (FU 33823-54)”, which is applicable to the nationwide maritime shooting range including the instant maritime shooting range, was amended several times.

2) The former Fisheries Act was amended by Act No. 8226 on January 3, 2007, and the amended Fisheries Act was enforced on April 4, 2007 in accordance with the Addenda to the above Act.

3) When required for military training or the protection of major military bases;

Note 4) When there is a request from the Minister of National Defense as deemed necessary for national defense

5) When required for the public works under Article 4 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

Note 6) The period for which the Plaintiffs seek compensation for damages is calculated against March 16, 2007, which is the date of the instant lawsuit. The Plaintiffs are partly claiming the amount stated in the purport of the claim out of the losses incurred during the said period. This is also identical to the claim for damages as set forth in the following 3.

7) Article 81(1)1 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 5131 of Dec. 30, 1995) provides that a person who suffers loss due to a disposition such as restricting the fishery business license due to a cause falling under Article 34 subparag. 1 through 5 and Article 35 subparag. 8 (limited to the case falling under Article 34(1)1 through 5) of the Act or due to an extension of the term of validity of the fishery business license may claim for compensation against the administrative agency. Even if the disposition on such a fishery business is subject to an administrative disposition, the loss due to such disposition is the intrinsic substance of the fishery business right, which is the right under the private law, and thus, the right to claim for compensation is not the right under the private law, but the right under the private law, and therefore, Article 81(1)1 of the same Act does not apply to a person who intends to claim for compensation, but rather, to file an administrative lawsuit against the administrative agency that issued the license fishery business license (or the right of the local government).

Note 8) The instant Guidelines for Safety Operation were amended several times thereafter, but the basic framework and content have not been modified.

Note 9) The instant safety management guidelines are “6. Duties and measures to be taken by each agency”, but they seem to be “7. Duties and measures to be taken by each agency”.

10) The Korea Fisheries Agency was established under the amendment of the Government Organization Act on August 2996 by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. Pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the former Government Organization Act (amended by Act No. 5153, Aug. 8, 1996; Act No. 5529, Feb. 28, 1998; Act No. 5529, Feb. 29, 2008; Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; Act No. 11688, Feb. 1996; Act No. 11388, Feb. 29, 2008; Act No. 11388, Mar. 1, 2013; Act No. 13888, Mar. 1, 2013>

According to the former Joint Chiefs of Staff Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21379 of Mar. 31, 2009), which are the Presidential Decree prepared to provide for the organization and scope of duties of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has one of the affiliates departments to establish the Strategic Planning Headquarters (Article 2(2) of the above Organization), and the head of the Strategic Planning Headquarters shall take charge of “the formulation and development of military base strategy, the requirement for the improvement of defense force, the planning and evaluation of weapons systems,” etc. (Article 6 of the above Organization),” and even according to this, it cannot be limited or interpreted as argued by the Plaintiffs as stipulated in Article 19 subparag. 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act.

12) In light of the purport of the Road Traffic Act, where the commissioner of a district police agency installs a crosswalk pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Road Traffic Act, a pedestrian shall cross the road only through the crosswalk, and the driver of a vehicle shall temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk to protect the pedestrian who passes the crosswalk. In light of the purport of the Road Traffic Act, the commissioner of a district police agency’s regulation of the method of passage, etc. of pedestrians by installing the crosswalk is an administrative agency’s order to impose an obligation on a specific matter, and it is an administrative disposition as it directly related to the rights and obligations of the people (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du8964, Oct.

13) The judgment of the first instance court partially accepted the claim for damages of some plaintiffs on the ground that "if any damage was incurred to the person entitled to the compensation due to the implementation of public works without such compensation, even though the provisions on compensation for losses should be applied or analogically applied, it constitutes a tort." However, the plaintiffs did not have made the aforementioned assertion in the first instance court, and the Supreme Court Decision 98Da11529 Decided the first instance court as the ground for the above determination differs from this case since the implementation of the Public Waters Reclamation Corporation without performing the duty of compensation by the project operator who is obligated to compensate for losses to the fishermen engaged in licensed fisheries within the public waters reclamation project zone, it cannot be invoked in this case. On the other hand, while the plaintiffs added some of the above arguments at the first instance court (as to the defendant against the Republic of Korea), they did not have the claim for compensation under the proviso of Article 81 (1) 1 of the former Fisheries Act. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is not separately determined.

14) The first instance court accepted only some of the plaintiffs' claims regarding the claim for damages arising from illegal acts among the plaintiffs' selective claims, while did not make any determination on the plaintiffs' selective claims. However, even if the court of first instance determined only one of the plaintiffs' selective claims and dismissed the remainder, and did not make any determination on the remainder of the claims, as long as the plaintiffs appealed against the judgment of the first instance, the whole selective claims of the plaintiffs are transferred to the appellate court for the first instance and are subject to adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da99, Jul. 24, 1998). Thus, this court shall determine all of the selective claims of the plaintiffs.